Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Yeah, and do you know why? Because this guy believes that most advancements in science are cooperative efforts, and that recognizing individuals for merely putting the last piece in the jigsaw puzzle is intellectually dishonest: It devalues the work of everyone else who contributed.

"recognizing individuals for merely putting the last piece in the jigsaw puzzle is intellectually dishonest: It devalues the work of everyone else who contributed."

He's got a good point, so why doesn't he take the money and pay all those he believes should be paid for their contribution? Perelman says his contribution is no greater than Richard Hamilton's who first suggested a pathway toward the solution. Why not give the money to him or scores of other great mathematicians?

His problem seems to be that Hamilton's work isn't being recognized as well, and more generally that the process used to assess the award is unjust. Why don't the key people at the Clay Mathematics Institute offer to sit down with him and hear what he has to say on the matter with an open mind about changing the way they work?

They don't have to ultimately do anything, but here they have a smart guy telling them something is wrong with their organization at great personal cost to himself. Wouldn't that promp

"By turning down the prize he brings wide attention to the issue, which could actually change the situation."

What issue? What situation?Don't get me wrong, I mean, if the guy doesn't want the money he doesn't have to take it. But I'm seeing a bunch of hand wringing here about a nothing issue, in my opinion. If the guy doesn't want to be bothered, if he wants to be a nutty recluse and be left alone to work out more math problems and what not, great. But if he's turning down the money to make some kind of political point wouldn't it have been better to take the money then turn around and set up a fund to combat priz

Because this guy believes that most advancements in science are cooperative efforts, and that recognizing individuals for merely putting the last piece in the jigsaw puzzle is intellectually dishonest

No, no, no, no, no. You got it all wrong. Please don't paint this with your opinionated brush about intellectual honesty.It's simple. What USE does he have for money in the 8th dimension?! (It's pronounced Big-boo-TAY)

Because this guy believes that most advancements in science are cooperative efforts, and that recognizing individuals for merely putting the last piece in the jigsaw puzzle is intellectually dishonest: It devalues the work of everyone else who contributed.

Cooperative efforts yes, but I disagree with the rest of your statement. The person who puts the last piece of the jigsaw puzzle together is the one who makes the work the rest did useful. So another guy pointed out the pathway? Yes, but he didn't solve the problem. His contributions may have been valuable, and he should be credited for what he did do, but starting something is not the same as finishing something. Starting something is not worth 1 million. Finishing something revolutionary is. Finding the answer that others, including the starter could not, is what make his work worth 1 million. And it doesn't devalue the work of those who's work he built on. It doesn't say they did nothing. It accurately values their contributions as good, but values his as the more revolutionary contribution, which it was.

As the Clay institute even points out in the article, every mathematician follows in the work of others. Everyone does that. There's nothing to reward there. What not everyone does is tie all the pieces together into a revolutionary advance. THAT's why they want to award Perleman 1 million dollars and that's why they think he should accept it. And I agree, he should take the money as it is not a gift, but rather an earned reward for the hard, revolutionary work that he did.

I thought it was because he was angry with some well known profs who he had talked to about his proof method and they had pretty much shut him out when he was a grad student or postdoc or something, and that because these awards are for leaders of the mathematical community, and he feels ostracized by the community, he won't participate.

That said, the dude is being supported by his mother--last I checked--which, if true, in my mind means he ought to take the money and give it to his mom if he doesn't want it.

recognizing individuals for merely putting the last piece in the jigsaw puzzle is intellectually dishonest

Not always true. If he's just the guy who put it all together, then it's true that maybe he doesn't deserve a huge prize. Nevertheless, some people truly revolutionize a field (or multiple fields) almost by themselves; see Linus Pauling for the best example.

Recognizing the last guy in a long line can sometimes be dishonest, but what if that line's been stalled for decades and this 'last guy in line' solves all the big problems or re-invents the field completely. Completely new schools of science happen ev

This reminds me of people being accused of mental unstability for being republican under a monarchy, pro-western under Soviet communism, atheist under a theocracy, religious among atheists, and so it goes on.

My training is mathematics. I don't have this guy's brain, but I sure hope that if, by some chance, I discover anything remotely as interesting as he has, I'll not sell out either. If every bright man did it for enjoyment of his discipline, life would be glorious.

He toured the math lecture circuit for a while a few years ago with apparently little difficulty being in the spotlight, and then relatively suddenly shut himself away from not just the public, but pretty much everyone. This does suggest that something happened that altered his mental state. It's not necessarily bad: perhaps he found a possible solution to another problem and has simply locked himself away from the world to work on it.

This reminds me of people being accused of mental unstability for being republican under a monarchy, pro-western under Soviet communism, atheist under a theocracy, religious among atheists, and so it goes on.

Perelman doesn't wash for weeks, doesn't comb his beard, and have fingernails and toenails longer than an average blonde. He may not be insane, but he's definitely not normal under any reasonable definition.

I think it's pretty clear that the guy suffers some severe abnormal psychology. Not uncommon among the brilliant.

Why? The purpose of these prize monies is to ensure that brilliant researchers have the ability to spend their time on what they are good at doing instead of worrying about where they work or how much they get paid.

If this guy feels that making a living is not conflicting with his work, why is it irrational to leave the money with the institute so it can help somebody else with less financial sec

He may be humble, he may be selfless. But he also dances to the beat of his own drum. For instance, when he came up with his solution, instead submitting it for review, he posted it online. And when he returned from America after meeting with a number of people and wowing them with his intellect, he dropped of the face of the Earth for a good portion of time. He quit his teaching job, is unemployed and living with his mother, refusing to even see anyone.

He may be humble, he may be selfless. But he also dances to the beat of his own drum. For instance, when he came up with his solution, instead submitting it for review, he posted it online. And when he returned from America after meeting with a number of people and wowing them with his intellect, he dropped of the face of the Earth for a good portion of time. He quit his teaching job, is unemployed and living with his mother, refusing to even see anyone.

He has 'issues'. They may be minor issues where he is still functional and simply has switched his focus from math to something else, or they may be major issues where we'll be calling him the next Bobby Fisher in a decade. But regardless, he has them.

Uh, if you provided a proof for one of the most famous conjectures in the history of mathematics you might be smart enough to know that it would create a great deal of publicity and public scrutiny. Both of which can be anathema to certain kinds of thinkers.

And you know what? It's his right to do any of those things. Just because people want to make him a celebrity doesn't mean that he shares their plans. Maybe he doesn't care about being famous, maybe he cares for his mother, maybe he likes long times of quiet contemplation in which to think, rather than the incessant rat race din that accompanies pretty much any other mode of life?

"Men have been taught that the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of virtue. But the creator is the egoist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel, judge or act. These are functions of the self." (Ayn Rand).

He should be honored and respected for his actions, not called abnormal.

I would also like to point out the he is in no way suffering a relapse of his previous trouble with holo-addiction. Working inside a simulation of Voyager instead of a conventional office is the most effective way for him to relax, and gives him an opportunity to bounce ideas off of the virtual crewmembers (who he is more comfortable interacting with than his real-world coworkers).

I don't think there's ever been too many, but I think there's still probably more but there now than there ever has been. He did a great job, but is by no means unique, although certainly the way he has responded to his achievements is fairly unique in modern times.

Don't forget that people like Andrew Wiles are still alive and kicking, who proved Fermat's Last Theorem in 1995 to give one example.

I think the real problem is that mathematical and scientific achievements are just going ever more unnoticed amon

The truly great ones tend to be, and I haven't seen any evidence that there's many of them out there at any given time. Mostly because most choose to go under the radar. But it does seem to require a certain amount of brokenness to the thalamus region of the brain to even get these sorts of ideas to begin with, and that tends to be somewhat counter the purpose of desiring recognition.

Also, trying to gain recognition is counter the process as it tends to drive people to fence in their thinking to areas t

I have this perverse urge to call him up once a week, claiming to be from a different foundation seeking to give him an award for his contributions to math. Maybe get really elaborate, have different people calling him, set up websites for each of these foundations to make them seem legit. I bet we could really drive him up the wall.

Heh. It's a good thing I'm not as big a jerk in real life as I am in my imagination. Or maybe it's just a good thing that I'm too lazy to pull off a prank like that.:P

And as others have pointed out, mooching off his mother at the same time.. poor woman:s Unless she's a bit off in the head too she'd probably quite like some more money, but also probably wouldn't want to upset her son.

he thinks he doesn't deserve the lion's share of the prize because there were others who contributed to his (their) achievement

the man has principles, that's for sure

all of our work, whatever we do, whether science, math, movies, music... we all stand on the shoulders of those who came before us, or on the shoulders of those working right next to us. often recognition for making a contribution is just a matter of luck, of being the one who accumulates the most media coverage for being at the tipping point when there was a tipping point to be had (as if anyone knows where or when the tipping points lie)

not that i'm denigrating grigory's contributions. HE is denigrating his own contributions. a genuinely humble man, even in the face of a cool million. he's more of an ascetic than i could ever be. he's married to his intellectual pursuits, he's foregone earthly indulgences because they will just get in the way of all he cares about doing. he knows that the money will ruin his mental discipline. locking himself in a room with his mind out of genuine intellectual passion

i admire him, i could never do that. i like the earthly indulgences too much

Why be proud of someone who refused helpful money? Think of the positive things he could have done by contributing it to a good cause, such as a math program for children. Refusing it and justifying it as some ethical behavior is actually the more self-centered, attention-seeking action to take.

rejecting the money is selfish, accepting the money is selfish, giving it to his mom is selfish, keeping it from his mom is selfish, etc. it all depends upon the motivation

all that i am saying is that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, so therefore whatever his motivation for rejecting the money, his mother probably shares the same motivations in her personality. therefore it is likely that she would be happiest with him rejecting the money. giving the money to his mother may very well be the absolute worst thing in the world he could ever do to his mother

so don't assume that your perspective is the only perspective that matters in situations like this, especially since you are not even in the situation. people are different, potentially very different from your own personality

He did the right thing, money wasn't the motivating factor for him and he's acknowledge that in his mind he made a minor contribution to the solution. It would've been unethical for him to take the money knowing that it wasn't a motivating factor rather than leaving it where it is to be awarded to somebody else that might be so motivated.

He did the right thing, money wasn't the motivating factor for him and he's acknowledge that in his mind he made a minor contribution to the solution. It would've been unethical for him to take the money knowing that it wasn't a motivating factor rather than leaving it where it is to be awarded to somebody else that might be so motivated

He's jobless, letting his elderly mother support him. That's the only ethical lapse I see here in refusing to take the money.

Besides - it's not surprising that the types of people who are dumb enough to waste money on lottery tickets, or lazy enough to want to just win a bunch of money instead of earn it, etc are going to make bad choices when they do have that money. I am surprised anyone could be dumb enough to end up homeless after being a millionaire, but I probably shouldn't be. Personally I'd buy a decent hou

Millennium. Two Ns. From Latin "mille", thousand, and "annus", year. A thousand years.If you write it with only one N, it would be derived from mille and anus, which would be "a thousand assholes".

- I am quite certain that Perelman's decision is actually based on the fact, that he thinks those are a thousand assholes, who decide who gets the medals/prizes and those who often unfairly get them.

You are closer to the truth than you think, in Russian there is a saying: each joke has a little bit of a joke in it (which means that jokes often carry a large element of truth and a little bit of a funny side as well.)

Carlson said. "But what he did is definitely not the way things are normally done."

And the only reason they took him seriously was from past work. So in other words; if someone cracks an astounding math problem and they don't know you; they will ignore you because you did not "follow their procedures"; even though your work might be the basis for faster than light travel or some current science fiction technology. What a bunch of self absorbed petty cry babies. They remind me of the scientists in HHGTTG for hanging the guy that created the infinite improbability drive; simply because they didn't like a smart-ass.

A bunch of people spent several years of their lives to validate that his solution was correct. The point is that those people wouldn't have bothered unless the source of the proposed solution was credible - because there are tons of crackpots who post all sorts of theories on the internet that aren't worth spending minutes let alone years of your life trying to validate or disprove.

Timecube.com does not offer anything that can be proven/disproven. There's just a lot of words, but nothing of any use. We're not talking about that level of kookery here.

I think the really time-consuming kookery is one that looks, on the surface, genuine. Something like the Bogdanov Affair [wikipedia.org], where you have to wade through some deep maths in order to figure things out.

How about they put the prize money into a scholarship fund. Surely he couldn't object to this. He could outline the type of benefactor he'd like to receive a stipend from time to time and leave the actual selection to a committee formed by associates of the Millennium Prize board.

It's an amazing demonstration of intellectual honesty. I'm in no way denigrating his contribution but the essential breakthrough was made by Hamilton's use of the Ricci Flow. However he's no doubt brilliant and the beauty of his solution seems to be enough for him.

Narrator: Meanwhile, at the International Conference of Mathematics...

(In a oak-walled conference room, about two dozen bearded and bespeckled men gathered around a long table, cluttered with papers, a large blackboard on the wall full of figures, cross-outs and erase marks. The man at the center of the table stands from his chair and wearily proclaims:)

Conference Leader: Well, gentlemen, I fear a solution to the Riemann hypothesis eludes us once again...

(Suddenly, a masked man bursts through the conference room doors.)

All: It's the Lone Mathematician!

LM: Gentlemen, I believe this is what you're looking for! (Slaps a paper on the desk. They all look down at it, then look up astonished)

All: A solution to the Riemann hypothesis! BUT HOW!?

CL (holding up the paper): So elegant and precise, and yet so simple! You're a man of true genius!

LM: I'm merely standing on the shoulders of giants, gentlemen.

(The Lone Mathematician gracefully leaps onto a nearby windowsill and steps out. They all run to the window and look down, seeing that he has jumped onto the back of a horse in the courtyard.)

If this guy were smart he'd take the money and use it to sustain himself in a way that would completely enable him to be free to pursue his interests. If it bothers him that much just take the damn money and donate it to some charity.

Say what you will, I think him refusing the money comes down to him being eccentric. Perhaps in his mind he's decided he's not going to live by human conventions. I'll give him credit in that regard. People are constantly being told, "be yourself". But what that actually means

This guy doesn't see of it as his money to determine where it ends up. He is just doing his part. He does not require a monetary award for his actions, he believes the benefit will come from him doing his work.

He's not a mathmetician for his own benefit, so he's basically trying to say that by saying "Take the money out of the equation".

Forget charity - if he doesn't want the award, he could give it to his mother. Perelman isn't just great at math, he's also a weird guy and a hermit. In his case, he's living with his elderly mother whose main source of income is her pension, which is not a lot in Russia. He's being offered more than enough money to cover his mother's living and medicine costs, it would be a very prudent thing to do.

$1 Million isn't what it used to be, but I'd still like to have it. I mean, if you got a Prof's Salary (and let's face it, if he chose to, this guy could have a *very* well salaried position at any University in the world he chose), he could have $1 Million, plus probably another 2 Million in salary over the course of 10 or 20 years. Instead, he turns down the 1 Million and *quits* the teaching position he had previously at a Russian university. Not sure how he plans to live on no salary and without taking